THE STORY of human evolution may have reached an unnatural conclusion, according to Sir David Attenborough.

'Medical advances and contraception mean mankind is no longer evolving in the same way as other animals, struggling to fit into an evolutionary niche in competition with other species, the naturalist says. Instead we stopped the evolutionary clock when we were able to rear 95 to 99 per cent of all new babies, he suggests in a new interview'

The Times

What other animals? So many animals are on the endangered species list or exist only in Zoos. Forests being chopped down at an alarming rate. There's just nowhere to hide!Massive cities built in China and Mongolia, no one living there,they're ghost cities. Its an eye opener!

Not to nitpick, but saying evolution is reaching an "unnatural conclusion" doesn't really make sense to me. By the very nature of what evolution is, whatever happens is evolution. Humans have continuously evolved to become really intelligent and be able to do all these things, just as all species have evolved different traits that have them impact the world differently over millions of years. So I'm not really sure I understand what is meant by that. Also, if they mean that physical traits are done changing that's also not true, and humans have evolved more in the past few hundreds that cockroaches probably have in the last few million. That said, yes I couldn't agree more that humans are doing a lot of nasty things these days and may very well be the downfall of the planet eventually for all we know.

Last edited by ClearblueSky on Sat Oct 12, 2013 9:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Lol, how is there a "supposed to be" with evolution? I'm sometimes blown away by the pedestrian, small minded ideologies that some people put forth as "science", which a value-based view of evolution like that certainly is not.

Talk about imposing one's own values on a larger picture. Amusingly, having a view like that is not far off from the theists who think that human existence has some "point", that starts and stops at a goal..things just keep on trucking and our karma leads us where we're going, that happens whether people set arbitrary limits for what constitutes evolution or not.

Also I think selective mating will over time produce distinct races if things continue as they are where people are selecting mates of similar caliber. You may end up with a caste system like in India where people of different castes have distinctly different "ethnicity" from selective breeding.

If there is a radical inconsistency between your statements and the position you claim to hold,you are a sock puppet.Make as many accounts as you want; people can identify your deception with this test.

disjointed wrote:Pathogens are evolving. New pathogens are being created by humans.

Also I think selective mating will over time produce distinct races if things continue as they are where people are selecting mates of similar caliber. You may end up with a caste system like in India where people of different castes have distinctly different "ethnicity" from selective breeding.

I'm sorry but this is more inaccurate than even the original point. The opposite has been happening continuously, as class systems have gradually broken down in most countries, people are traveling more, there is less inbreeding, and interracial mating is becoming less taboo. If anything, people are gradually going to look more similar than different. More and more people are having kids outside of their race and religion, that's a fact. And yes, humans are making new pathogens that could potentially spread. We're also working on new antibodies. We also first evolved to walk, then make tools, then fire, then weapons that helped us kill more mammoths than other predators could, then we domesticated animals (which caused them to spread pathogens to new locations and spread unnatural disease there), at what point did it become an "unnatural conclusion"? I really don't mean to be testy, and you bring up interesting ideas, but religious misinterpretations of evolution is something I worry about.

disjointed wrote:Pathogens are evolving. New pathogens are being created by humans.

Also I think selective mating will over time produce distinct races if things continue as they are where people are selecting mates of similar caliber. You may end up with a caste system like in India where people of different castes have distinctly different "ethnicity" from selective breeding.

I'm sorry but this is more inaccurate than even the original point. The opposite has been happening continuously, as class systems have gradually broken down in most countries, people are traveling more, there is less inbreeding, and interracial mating is becoming less taboo. If anything, people are gradually going to look more similar than different. More and more people are having kids outside of their race and religion, that's a fact. And yes, humans are making new pathogens that could potentially spread. We're also working on new antibodies. We also first evolved to walk, then make tools, then fire, then weapons that helped us kill more mammoths than other predators could, then we domesticated animals (which caused them to spread pathogens to new locations and spread unnatural disease there), at what point did it become an "unnatural conclusion"? I really don't mean to be testy, and you bring up interesting ideas, but religious misinterpretations of evolution is something I worry about.

Clear, it is because people have a larger selection of mates that humanity is dividing into classes.The attractive, athletic, intelligent people choose others with good traits. This repeats over generations forming a separate genetic pool.Likewise the unattractive, physically weak, dumb people will choose whoever they can get, and this repeats over generations forming a separate genetic pool.Because the rules of selecting a mate that is equal or better than yourself are rarely ever broken and because there is no limiting factor on those you can choose as a mate, these differences will become more pronounced over time.

Have you ever noticed that some families are full of intelligent, attractive, and athletic members? And other families have members with weak constitutions, slow minds, and homely features?That's because selective breeding in a globalized world has already started producing results.

As for new pathogens, just the pathogens from fossil fuels floating around in the air is considerable, not to mention the petrol derivatives being used as food colorings and preservatives. Then there is nuclear waste, antibiotic resistant bacteria, fungicide resistant fungi, cross contamination of parasites between countries, new chemical compounds, new viruses, and whatever biotech labs are cooking up.

If there is a radical inconsistency between your statements and the position you claim to hold,you are a sock puppet.Make as many accounts as you want; people can identify your deception with this test.

Classes (social) and race are not parts of biological classification (taxonomy).

“Not till your thoughts cease all their branching here and there, not till you abandon all thoughts of seeking for something, not till your mind is motionless as wood or stone, will you be on the right road to the Gate.”

disjointed, You have some very interesting ideas but shaping a narrative around a pet idea is not always the most logical. Your arguement is a little bit messy as I can't count the number of times I've seen beautiful women give birth to quite ordinary looking children. Or travelled through the third world and seen extraordinary looking young men and girls in small, impoverished villages....that took my breathe away. They weren't athletic, there was no catwalk for them but just passing eyes that appreciated their beauty.Anyway I won't proceed any further as this is too superficial for a Buddhist, spiritual discussion.

If there is a radical inconsistency between your statements and the position you claim to hold,you are a sock puppet.Make as many accounts as you want; people can identify your deception with this test.

I confess to being at a loss for words by the sheer absurdity of that article.

It fails to convey any real understanding of evolution. Being smart, for example, is not a universal trait of species survival. If it was there would only be smart things on the planet - which is clearly not the case. Similarly being attractive is entirely a question of perspective - taking humans as an example, our take on 'attractiveness' has changed many times in just the last few hundred years - and overlooks the millions of humping 'uglies' in the world at present.

As an example: It is totally possible that the "... underclass humans who ... have evolved into dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures" would turn out to be the most robust group on a world of diminishing resources.

Really.

Totally.

Gobsmacked that this article ever got published.

“Not till your thoughts cease all their branching here and there, not till you abandon all thoughts of seeking for something, not till your mind is motionless as wood or stone, will you be on the right road to the Gate.”

Qing Tian wrote:I confess to being at a loss for words by the sheer absurdity of that article.

It fails to convey any real understanding of evolution. Being smart, for example, is not a universal trait of species survival. If it was there would only be smart things on the planet - which is clearly not the case. Similarly being attractive is entirely a question of perspective - taking humans as an example, our take on 'attractiveness' has changed many times in just the last few hundred years - and overlooks the millions of humping 'uglies' in the world at present.

As an example: It is totally possible that the "... underclass humans who ... have evolved into dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures" would turn out to be the most robust group on a world of diminishing resources.

I guess theoretically that could be a way evolution goes (which ironically would be about as "natural" as it gets, since it's based in selective mating), but I don't really understand what connection the author is trying to make to technology. I guess just that we won't need to use our bodies anymore, which could have an effect, especially because they are seeing with epigenetics nowadays that lifestyle can effect future generations, not just whether people die out. So let's say that much is totally true (though that part about cancer sure seems strange for a futurist to write, I'd bet a hefty sum we'll have that pretty taken care of in 100,000 years, but we'll put that aside). But okay, we've all evolved into fat, short beings who can't chew due to our lifestyles. This was preceded by us all evolving into gorgeous athletes, as the author said. Okay, fair. But where is the explanation, and I mean even within the article, for why it suddenly jumps to "Further into the future, sexual selection - being choosy about one's partner - was likely to create more and more genetic inequality" (also is it just me, or is saying something 'was' in the future some pretty funny grammar?). The author himself is saying we have two stages before that make us all more similar, which is what I was getting at in the first place. And then he suddenly pulls a total 180, with zero explanation. So to disjointed's credit, I won't argue that parts of that seem totally possible to me, but considering the author's theories don't really fit together, and most of it has no more explanation than "and then this will happen", it comes across much more as a poorly written sci-fi theory than something with any scientific reasoning.

I have qualms with the article also. But that is where I gleaned the idea from originally so I felt I should cite it.

The reason I repeat this idea is because it makes sense to me and I can see it in action when I look at couples.People match up with other people of a similar caliber often. And while there are exceptions and the consideration of environmental factors causing matches of dissimilar genetic caliber, I think the pattern of mate selection would still be expressed strongly.

So for instance, my family on either side is not that great, and my siblings are not that great. Then I look at other families with outstanding parents that have outstanding children. And again I look, but this time at lesser parents having lesser children.

Sometimes children, despite lesser parents become outstanding, and vice versa, but that is expected in genetic selection models because of the nature of genetics.

The best argument against this is epigenetics. And depending on the relevance it could invalidate or pose no objection to this theory.

If there is a radical inconsistency between your statements and the position you claim to hold,you are a sock puppet.Make as many accounts as you want; people can identify your deception with this test.

People match up with other people of a similar caliber often. And while there are exceptions and the consideration of environmental factors causing matches of dissimilar genetic caliber, I think the pattern of mate selection would still be expressed strongly.

What exactly do mean by 'genetic caliber'?

Frankly, this line of argument is disturbingly similar to the eugenics.

Don't go the there, man.

“Not till your thoughts cease all their branching here and there, not till you abandon all thoughts of seeking for something, not till your mind is motionless as wood or stone, will you be on the right road to the Gate.”

I used "caliber" in lieu of three parameters I already mentioned. Attractiveness, athleticism(which I see as encompassing general health), and intelligence.

It does sound kind of like eugenics. Except that I'm not advocating sterilization or reproduction programs. Maybe I should, but I don't think that we could trust other people with deciding the direction humanity takes. There are people that practice eugenics today actually though. Ever wonder why polygamous Mormons look so similar to each other? Their model is seriously flawed though i.e. small gene pool, closed communities, inbreeding.

If there is a radical inconsistency between your statements and the position you claim to hold,you are a sock puppet.Make as many accounts as you want; people can identify your deception with this test.

The history of science generally and of eugenics as pseudoscience specifically tells us that disjointed is half-right on the question of whether you can trust others to make decisions on your life. I say half-right, because those with means and social capital have the means not only to determine which characteristics get to be reproduced (that is, who gets to reproduce or even survive), but also the terms by which those decisions are made and the means by which those decisions are implemented. Which is to say: if you're not wealthy, a minority in any meaningful sense, or an outsider in any way, then any conversation about eugenics should concern you.

Further, if you have any concern for the wellbeing of others, inclusive of those who may be outsiders in some way or may not be among the 1%... persons who, for instance, may identify as Mahayana Buddhists... then eugenics should concern you too.

Shorter version: forced sterilization is social control in every instance it has been deployed as policy or practice. And that's not even getting to the shoah. Here's an accessible primer:

If the thought of demons Never rises in your mind, You need not fear the demon hosts around you. It is most important to tame your mind within....

In so far as the Ultimate, or the true nature of being is concerned, there are neither buddhas or demons. He who frees himself from fear and hope, evil and virtue, will realize the insubstantial and groundless nature of confusion. Samsara will then appear as the mahamudra itself….